tHE DOUBT

PLEASE REFER TO THE KEY EVIDENCE PAGE

THE PHONE CALLDespite the police and prosecutions insistence that the phone call occurred on December 12th, there was no call placed to the Katrinak house on that day, from any phone Patricia Rorrer had access to. Patty has always claimed the call occurred on the 7th, and her phone records support this.

The date of the call was always a stickler for the prosecution, as evidenced by the fact that D.A. Michael McIntyre asked Patty on the stand if she were in Pennsylvania when she made the call. It is a telling point:

1. The police and prosecution have always maintained that the phone call led to Joann's murder and became the motive for the crime, and that when Joann hung up on Patty, it unleashed such a fit of rage in her that she immediately hopped in her van and sped to PA to commit murder.

THE DOUBT:The only evidence the police have that the call occurred on the 12th is Andy Katrinak. ALL of the evidence points to the call taking place on December 7th, just like Patty said. If Patricia were already in PA when she made the call, then obviously, the call was NOT the motive for murder. Why would she have hidden her trip to PA? She could not have known that she would engage in a phone call with Joann that would lead to murder.The police chose to accept Andy's version of the phone call for only one reason:They had to place the call closer to the time of the crime because they knew that no jury would ever believe that Patricia was still be in such a fit of rage EIGHT DAYS after a petty hang-up call that she would drive five-hundred miles to murder a woman and baby she had never met.

THE BREAK-IN

Many of the problems concerning the break-in at the Katrinak house, only begin to make sense when you know the story of OFFICER JOSEPH YORK.

In 2016, Officer York, a retired, Northampton police officer signed an affidavit stating that Officer Joseph Kicska, the first officer to respond to the Katrinak house on the night of December 15th, had admitted to him that there was no break-in at the Katrinak house that night. Kicska allegedly said that he had checked the entire house, both inside and out, including the basement door, and the scene was secure. He also allegedly said that he lied about seeing signs of a break-in at Patricia Rorrer's trial because someone in the District Attorney's office threatened his job if he didn't.

To begin with:1. Why would Patricia go through the trouble of backing out, but not removing 19 of 20 screws to gain entry to the Katrinak basement, if all she had to do was pop the hasp of the padlock from the door as police say she eventually did?

2. If Patricia did back-out the 19 screws, why did she give up when she was only one screw short of success? Without removing the plywood, she couldn't have known there was a second piece attached inside.

3. Would any intruder be brazen enough to break into a house using a power tool in broad daylight, on a very busy street, with their victim just inside the door?

4. Why did no police officer make note of these loosened screws, or testify to seeing at trial to having seen them?

5. Why did the last officer to respond to the house testify that when he looked at the basement door he noticed "The hasp loose in nature." Not broken, not pried away from the jamb, but "just loose in nature."

6. Why did Andy Katrinak admit to the police that screws on his basement door "May have been tampered with?"

7. Why, if the police actually did see evidence at the home of a missing mother and child, did they fail to take their disappearance seriously?

Officer York's story tends to corroborate the notion that the break-in at the Katrinak house was staged. If there was no break-in, then the police would have had no reason to suspect foul play by Joann's tardiness of only a few hours.

THE CUT PHONE LINE

1. The portable phone line was located in a dark recess of the basement where no natural or artificial light penetrated. Why would an intruder search out this obscure line to cut when the main line was clearly visible as soon as one entered the basement?

2. WHY DID ANDY SPLICE THE CUT PHONE LINE BACK TOGETHER BEFORE THE POLICE HAD A CHANCE TO INVESTIGATE IT?

3. Captain Robert Werts of the Pennsylvania State Police stated on national television (On the Case With Paula Zahn) that "Whoever cut the phone line in the Katrinak basement HAD TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE HOUSE, but Patricia was not familiar with the house, nor did she ever live there.

4. Since no tools needed to break into the Katrinak house were ever found there, this means that Patricia must have brought the cordless screwdriver, the crow bar (needed to pop the hasp from the jamb) and the wire cutters with her from North Carolina. HOW DID SHE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TOOLS TO BRING, AND WHAT TOOLS WOULD BE NEEDED TO BREAK INTO THE KATRINAK HOUSE?

THE CAR

There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Joann's car was ever used in this crime.

1. According to the medical examiner, Joann suffered 19 brutal head wounds, a broken nose and a bullet to the face that nicked her carotid artery. All inflicted before death. By all accounts, Joann would have been bleeding profusely.

2. A .22 caliber Jennings semi-automatic weapon is a small gun that fits in the palm of ones hand. If Patricia used this gun to inflict the head wounds on Joann, she would have had to have been right on top of her victim wielding the blows.

3. YET, THERE WAS NOT ONE SPECK OF BLOOD FOUND IN JOANN'S CAR. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? WHOEVER KILLED JOANN WOULD HAVE BEEN SATURATED WITH BLOOD.

4. If Patricia were the killer, how did she clean herself up? Did she commit the murders in the nude? Wash up in a nearby pond? Not likely, not in mid-December in Pennsylvania.

5. What kind of killer is brazen enough to return a car to the victim's own house, and risk being seen by those looking for her?

6. Why was there NO dirt consistent with the body site, found on or in Joann's car? The only soil found on the car was the soil from McCarty's parking lot, next door to Joann's house, where the car was eventually discovered.

Although there is not one shred of evidence linking Joann's Toyota Corolla to the crimes, the police continue to insist that it was used. There is only one logical explanation for this:Just as they needed to place the phone call closer to the day of the crime, they also needed to connect the car to the murders because it was from the car that they found the only piece of physical evidence linking Patricia to the crimes--that one lone hair. IF THE CAR WERE NOT USED IN THE CRIME, THEN ANYTHING DISCOVERED IN IT WOULD BE DEEMED IRRELEVANT AND NOT ADMITTED INTO COURT. WITHOUT THE CAR, THE POLICE COULD NOT HAVE USED THE HAIR AND WITHOUT THE HAIR THEY COULD NOT HAVE CONVICTED PATRICIA RORRER.